• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Revel Salon2 vs Genelec 8351B - Blind Test Preparations

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
No I'm not either. What is the point of your comments if it wasn't to imply something wrong with the research and it's conclusions?

Cost effective != wrong

My point is that, in a commercial setting, one need not test in stereo if testing in mono was quicker, cheaper, and gave enough data, was "good enough" to make design decisions.

In other words, this isn't pure academic science research, nor are lives at stake. Good enough is good enough.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
I find soundstage completely collapses in mono, but that is to be expected. Tonality is the same though, and that's what you're listening for. Two speakers should sound totally the same as one speaker, you just get more of everything.
Well of course :)

The research showed the preferences remained the same in stereo so obviously people's perceptions (or the sound) didn't fundamentally change. Listening in mono does appear to allow people to hear faults more easily though.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Cost effective =! wrong

My point is that, in a commercial setting, one need not test in stereo if testing in mono was quicker, cheaper, and gave enough data, was "good enough" to make design decisions.

In other words, this isn't pure academic science research, nor are lives at stake. Good enough is good enough.
Well it wasn't just "good enough" in mono, it was better! I don't think cost had a bearing
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
That's one of the only things from Toole I find dumb, as the argument is completely wrong. The idea that mono shows more MOS difference -> correctness is not backed by anything. It's the same as making people wear ball and chain during a 100 m sprint because it makes the variance in times larger; it makes more evident who's the strongest, but not the fastest.

Although I've personally found mono to favor wider dispersion, I think it's important to caveat these types of opinions with the fact that there is zero actual evidence to support them. The only real evidence we have shows mono vs stereo preferences remain the same. Also, mono makes it easier to hear tonality differences.

I'm very hesitant to flat out unequivocally say that mono favors wider dispersion. I think more research needs to be done in this area.
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
No because they also performed stereo tests and always found the preference order remained the same.

But does that mean the preference order will necessarily always stay the same?

When comparing the scores in the Rega vs KEF vs Quad test, the scores of the lowest-ranking speaker (the narrow-pattern, dipolar Quad) improved dramatically in stereo, while the scores of the others did not move much. The score of the Quad did not move up enough for its ranking versus the Rega and KEF to change, and this is what people have focused on as evidence that mono listening preference can reliably be extrapolated to stereo listening preference. However IF the Quads had been compared to other speakers which did not score as high as the Rega and KEF in mono, THEN the ranking easily could have changed.

To me, the more interesting aspect of comparing mono vs stereo scores of the Rega, KEF and Quad is NOT that the ranking stayed the same, but that the Quad's score improved so dramatically. I'm curious about the technical and/or psychoacoustic principle(s) behind this.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
Well of course :)

The research showed the preferences remained the same in stereo so obviously people's perceptions (or the sound) didn't fundamentally change. Listening in mono does appear to allow people to hear faults more easily though.
I can believe that, based on the mono and stereo test I did (Buchardt S400 and PSB Imagine B). Stereo sounds so much better that I think it's easier to forgive flaws. But the differences in tonal balance from the mono test were still heard in the stereo test. Maybe they were slightly more apparent in mono, but not by much.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Well, as I don't have any of those, I can't test that.

You should try.

Late period mono is often more realistic sounding than early stereo with hard panning.

I'm not a Beatles fan (from that period, I'm more into jazz and classical), but some of those that are swear that their original mono recordings are better.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700

DJBonoBobo

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Messages
1,360
Likes
2,851
Location
any germ
Meaning, what's the point of all that better bass below 100 Hz if you're going to cross over to a sub in that range, anyway?

Serious question: Would someone really buy a huge speaker like the Salon2 if they didn't need the bass at all, but used subs anyway?

(Genelec: of course)
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
But does that mean the preference order will necessarily always stay the same?

When comparing the scores in the Rega vs KEF vs Quad test, the scores of the lowest-ranking speaker (the narrow-pattern, dipolar Quad) improved dramatically in stereo, while the scores of the others did not move much. The score of the Quad did not move up enough for its ranking versus the Rega and KEF to change, and this is what people have focused on as evidence that mono listening preference can reliably be extrapolated to stereo listening preference. However IF the Quads had been compared to other speakers which did not score as high as the Rega and KEF in mono, THEN the ranking easily could have changed.

To me, the more interesting aspect of comparing mono vs stereo scores of the Rega, KEF and Quad is NOT that the ranking stayed the same, but that the Quad's score improved so dramatically. I'm curious about the technical and/or psychoacoustic principle(s) behind this.
From the research that hs been performed and the subsequent commentary from Toole, yes.

Suggesting that you might be able to create a circumstance which changes this around isn't much evidence of anything. It's speculation.

It could equally be a manifestation of the fact that stereo is less revealing of faults.
 
Last edited:

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Sorry your train of thought has lost me. They did perform stereo experiments and found it to give the same fundamental answers as mono but with more scatter.

Yes, I've read the book.

I was responding to those who were discounting the mono-centric testing.
 
Top Bottom